Team Trump is now trying to marginalize Papadopoulos as a mere volunteer—the “Papa-Who” defense.

…

Sam Buellworked the Enron case as a federal prosecutor, and now teaches at Duke University law school. “The Papadopoulos plea is very significant,” he says. “Mueller has a witness, a cooperating witness, who has pled guilty and is prepared to testify about pretty extensive contacts between himself in his capacity as a campaign official and individuals purporting to represent the Russian government. And in those discussions there’s talk about an exchange of information, in the form of e-mails, for help fostering a relationship with Donald Trump. If this isn’t collusion, I don’t know what collusion is.”

Today’s moves show that Mueller intends to unveil indictments serially, as he conducts a rolling investigation. Which makes sense—as long as Trump doesn’t try to roll Mueller out the door.

The absolute numbers and the “tiny fraction of total content served” do not matter much. What matters is the numbers of the most vulnerable, and possibly not very intelligent individuals, who are the most suggestible and susceptible to the effects of “psychographic” targeting and the specially designed, individually tailored advertising, and the impact on their voting preferences. The small numbers and the “tiny fractions” can produce the crucial swing votes in the key states and localities and can determine the outcome of the elections, as, apparently, was the case in 2016.

These are the important issues for the digital age.

Michael Novakhov

10.30.17

__________________________

“For Facebook, which places roughly 220 posts each day in the news feeds of US users, the amount of content equals about tiny fraction of total content served. Americans in total were served over 33 trillion stories in their News Feeds between 2015 and 2017.”

Here’s the thing about Donald Trump: he’ll throw anyone under the bus. Moments after his campaign chairman Paul Manafort was arrested this morning, Trump dismissively tweeted that Manafort was arrested for crimes that took place before he joined the campaign. When Trump announced last month that he would be helping his associates with Trump-Russia legal fees, he made clear that none of the money would be going to his loyal former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. Now we may know why.

Manafort was arrested this morning on a dozen different charges. One of them is “Conspiracy against the United States” – which is every bit as ugly as it sounds. He was also charged with failure to register as a foreign agent. That’s the exact same crime Michael Flynn admitted to when he retroactively registered as a foreign agent after he’d gotten caught. We know Special Counsel Robert Mueller has had a grand jury against Flynn for some time in Virginia. Mueller is intentionally making an example of Manafort, making sure his arrest is plastered all over the TV news in the most humiliating way possible. So where is Flynn’s big spectacle of an arrest? Why isn’t he being made an example of as well?

It’s entirely possible that Michael Flynn will be arrested before the day is over, as the dual arrests of Manafort and Rick Gates – along with today’s reveal of the George Papadopoulos plea deal – have made clear that Mueller is going all-in today. But even if Flynn does quietly get arrested today, he’ll have been spared the humiliation of having been the prominent first arrest out of the gate. There’s really only one reason for Mueller to give Flynn that kind of courtesy.

If Michael Flynn has cut a deal to flip on Donald Trump, he’ll still be indicted, charged, arrested, and required to plead guilty, as part of the carrying out of that deal. It’s notable that on this day, one of Donald Trump’s two key foreign agents got popped before the cameras for all to see, while the other one seems to be getting the kid gloves. Throw in Trump’s decision not to help Flynn with his legal fees, and it sounds like even the ever-oblivious Trump knows Flynn has cut a deal against him. Why would the ever-defiant Flynn cut a deal? Simple: to keep his son Michael Flynn Jr out of prison.

Keep in mind that Robert Mueller arrested Trump adviser George Papadopoulos months ago, and formally cut a deal with him weeks ago, and none of us are learning about it until today (link). So it’s entirely possible that Michael Flynn has already secretly cut a deal as well. For that matter it’s possible Flynn already surrendered himself awhile ago – which would also explain why he wasn’t popped this morning. Stay tuned.

Trump aides arrestedCastanet.net
between his campaign and the Russian government. Responding to news that two … Trump’s tweets followed news reports late Friday that a federal grand jury in Washington has approved the first charges in a criminal investigation into Russia ties led by …and more »

Whatever else it may be, the story of Donald Trump and Russia comes down to this: a sitting president or his campaign is suspected of having coordinated with a foreign country to manipulate a US election. He strongly denies all wrongdoing and calls the inquiry a “witch hunt”. But prosecutors see red flags everywhere.

The story could not be bigger, and the stakes for Trump – and the country – could not be higher.

Investigators are asking two basic questions: did Trump’s presidential campaign collude at any level with Russian operatives to sway the 2016 US presidential election? And did Trump or others break the law to throw investigators off the trail?

The gravity of the case was highlighted early on Monday as the former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort turned himself in to federal authorities to face charges including conspiracy against the United States, tax evasion and money laundering. Beginning in 2005, Manafort worked as a political consultant and business partner with Russian oligarchs and Kremlin-linked politicians in Ukraine, as did his colleague, Richard Gates III, who was also indicted on Monday.

Manafort entered the FBI field office in Washington at 8.15am, accompanied by his lawyer. Photograph: Guardian Video

Manafort joined the Trump campaign in March 2016 and resigned in August after his ties to Kremlin-linked figures came under increasing scrutiny.

The charges against Manafort are separate from but related to the allegations of “collusion” between the Trump campaign writ large and Russian operatives. The presence at the top of the campaign of a suspect accused of working in secret for a foreign government, and of hiding money in offshore accounts to avoid tax payments, places the campaign uncomfortably close to Kremlin interests.

But the charges against Manafort and Gates do not mention any attempted manipulation of the 2016 election. Though Manafort personally offered “private briefings” on the election to Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska in July 2016, Trump has denied any knowledge of Manafort’s dealings in the former Soviet bloc and has defendedManafort as a “very decent man”.

While a majority of the American public now believes that Russia tried to disrupt the US election, opinions about Trump campaign involvement tend to split along partisan lines: 73% of Republicans, but only 13% of Democrats, believe Trump did “nothing wrong” in his dealings with Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin.

The affair has the potential to eject Trump from office. Experienced legal observers believe that prosecutors are investigating whether Trump committed an obstruction of justice. Both Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton – the only presidents to face impeachment proceedings in the last century – were accused of obstruction of justice.

Trump’s firing of FBI director James Comey, shown here on 8 June 2017 as he testified before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, could be an obstruction of justice. Photograph: J. Scott Applewhite/AP

But Trump’s fate is probably up to the voters. Even if strong evidence of wrongdoing by him or his cohort emerged, a Republican congressional majority would probably block any action to remove him from office. (Such an action would be a historical rarity.)

Deepening negative perceptions attached to the Russia affair could, however, be the force that levels Trump, dooming a 2020 re-election bid. Or the president may yet be fully vindicated, re-elected and elevated in the eyes of the people.

None of the three congressional committees investigating the matter, nor the special counsel, Robert Mueller, has yet announced any evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives. The investigations have an open timeline.

Here’s what you need to know:

What are the most serious allegations?

It appears that prosecutors are weighing serious charges, including obstruction of justice, against Trump. (Weighing a charge does not mean bringing a charge.) Current and former Trump aides are likewise under intense pressure, a point underscored by the arrest of Paul Manafort on 30 October.

Collusion. Did Trump or his campaign “collude” with Russia to tip the 2016 election? Such collusion could take many conceivable forms. Investigators might be looking into whether members of Trump’s digital team traded information with Russia-linked hackers about which voters the campaign was most interested in. Or they might be looking for evidence of conversations about the timing of the release of certain hacked materials. Or about potential hacking targets. (No evidence has yet emerged of any of the above; Trump and his aides have denied all wrongdoing.)

Obstruction of justice. Has Trump gotten in the way of law enforcement efforts to figure out what happened? Investigators might be looking into whether Trump intended, by firing the FBI director James Comey on 9 May 2017, to pull the plug on the Russia investigation. Trump seems to have admitted as much. “I just fired the head of the FBI,” Trump reportedly told Russians in the Oval Office the next day. “He was crazy, a real nutjob. I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”

Trump jokes with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov (L) and Russian Ambassador to the US, Sergei Kislyak during a meeting at the White House in Washington, DC, a day after firing FBI director Comey. Photograph: HO/AFP/Getty Images

But Trump’s frame of mind is crucial in weighing a potential obstruction charge, and he has offered alternative explanations for the firing of Comey, including that Comey was mismanaging the FBI. To discern Trump’s intent, investigators are probably focusing on an initial letter to fire Comey drafted by Trump but rejected by the White House counsel. That letter has not yet been made public.

Abuse of power. Trump may have committed offenses that relate specifically to the office of the presidency, such as a violation of the oath of office (to uphold the constitution), or an abuse of power, which might for example involve firing Comey out of personal pique at Comey’s refusal publicly to say that Trump was not personally a target of the Russia investigation.

We don’t for the moment know, however, what exactly the investigators – three congressional committees plus the special counsel – are investigating. The official order appointing Robert Mueller authorizes him to investigate “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump” and related matters. Mueller is authorized to prosecute federal crimes.

Current and former aides. Trump aides are thought to face potential charges including money laundering, making false statements, failure to register as a foreign agent, campaign finance violations and more. In May, the former national security adviser Michael Flynn invoked constitutional protections against self-incrimination to avoid testifying before a Senate committee. Paul Manafort was arrested on 30 October on money laundering, tax evasion and conspiracy charges. Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner stood outside the White House that month and said: “I did not collude.” Former aides Carter Page and Roger Stone have both been questioned by investigators and asked to turn over documents and records. The attorney general, Jeff Sessions, has defended himself against accusations of making misleading statements to Congress. All these men – Flynn, Manafort, Kushner, Page, Stone and Sessions – have denied wrongdoing.

How much trouble is Trump in?

Who controls Congress? The short answer to this question is another question: who controls Congress? As long as Republicans are in charge, Trump is not likely to face impeachment proceedings or to be removed from office. A two-thirds majority in the Senate is required to remove a president from office through impeachment. Before such action, a simple House majority would be required to pass articles of impeachment.

Public opinion. If public opinion swings precipitously against the president, however, his grip on power could slip. At some point, Republicans in Congress may, if their constituents will it, turn on Trump.

Criminal charges. Apart from impeachment, Trump could, perhaps, face criminal charges, which would (theoretically) play out in the court system as opposed to Congress. Special counsel Robert Mueller has the power to file criminal charges against Trump, but it’s a matter of debate among scholars and prosecutors whether Trump, as a sitting president, may be prosecuted. It’s never been tried before.

Losing re-election. The most likely price Trump would pay, if he were perceived as guilty of wrongdoing, would be a 2020 re-election loss. Every president to win re-election since the second world war did so with an approval rating in the 49% or 50% range or better. Trump’s average approval rating is in the mid-to-upper 30s. The number could slide even further if, for example, one of his former aides or cabinet members is indicted on money laundering charges.

Is this a ‘witch hunt’ as Trump claims?

“You are witnessing the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political history – led by some very bad and conflicted people! #MAGA” Trump tweeted in June. Elsewhere, Trump has decried what he says are the wasteful costs of investigating the case.

Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)

You are witnessing the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political history – led by some very bad and conflicted people! #MAGA

Those assertions would seem to be undercut by developments such as the arrest of Manafort. But the question is seen through different lenses.

Partisan split. Are the president and his team the victims of a witch hunt? Your answer to the question probably depends on your political affiliation.

Seventy-three percent of registered Republicans think Trump did “nothing wrong” in his dealings with Russia and Putin, according to a Marist poll in July. But only a 36% minority of US adults overall think Trump did “nothing wrong”, the poll found. Forty-one percent of Democrats said they thought Trump had done “something illegal” and 59% said Trump’s campaign associates had broken the law.

Record of conduct. Apart from public opinion, what do we have to go on? A record of conduct by Trump and his aides going back decades, which is defined by secrecy and denials.

Trump has denied his past links to Russian investors and partners and a long history of attempted business deals in Russia, while praising President Putin. Trump aides denied meetings and conversations with Russian operatives that came to light anyway. When a June 2016 Trump Tower meeting was revealed, Trump misled the public as to its purpose. His tax returns, which could reveal previously undisclosed financial relationships, remain sealed to the public.

Faith in the rule of law. Is this a “witch hunt”? A negative reply relies on a faith in the rule of law in the United States.

Have investigators proceeded logically, in response to a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing, and in accordance with congressional and justice department guidelines?

Republicans in Congress have given the allegations against the Trump campaign sufficient credence to advance investigations in three committees. Trump’s own justice department saw fit to take the step of appointing the special counsel, Robert Mueller.

Robert Mueller took over the high-stakes Russia probe in May after US President Donald Trump fired James Comey as FBI director. Photograph: Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images

Mueller, who was named FBI director by George W Bush and held over by Barack Obama, enjoys a reputation for integrity from both sides of the aisle. Trump has said Mueller “is very very good friends with [James] Comey, which is very bothersome” but also said, “Robert Mueller is an honorable man.” Mueller’s critics have accused his operation of having a partisan tilt based on past campaign donations to Clinton and Obama made by at least five legal team members. But others have argued the donations are neither unusual nor evidence of anti-Trump bias.

A pattern of attacks. Trump’s “witch hunt” accusation is not his first attack on the rule of law. He branded Comeya liar and said the FBI was a “mess”. He has attacked judges and courts after rulings he did not like on immigration policy or his proposed travel ban. He publicly criticized the attorney general for a decision he did not agree with. As president, Trump has displayed a unique tendency to make baseless attacks on the justice department. But also as president, he also has unique ability to amplify those attacks and to make them devastatingly effective, eroding faith in the process.

A pattern of obstruction? Trump’s tendency to attack the process may ultimately backfire on him. Legal scholars have warned that Trump’s attacks on the special counsel investigation and justice department could amount to obstruction of justice by the president.

If Trump’s lawyers have warned him to stop tampering with the process, however, he has not heeded that advice. On 27 October, Trump tweeted: “It is now commonly agreed, after many months of COSTLY looking, that there was NO collusion between Russia and Trump.”

That wasn’t true, and it could be seen as an attempt to influence the outcome of the case. Later the same day, reports emerged that the first charges in the case had been filed. And just three weeks earlier, the Republican chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, Richard Burr, said: “The issue of collusion is still open.”

Here’s the thing about Donald Trump: he’ll throw anyone under the bus. Moments after his campaign chairman Paul Manafort was arrested this morning, Trump dismissively tweeted that Manafort was arrested for crimes that took place before he joined the campaign. When Trump announced last month that he would be helping his associates with Trump-Russia legal fees, he made clear that none of the money would be going to his loyal former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. Now we may know why.

Manafort was arrested this morning on a dozen different charges. One of them is “Conspiracy against the United States” – which is every bit as ugly as it sounds. He was also charged with failure to register as a foreign agent. That’s the exact same crime Michael Flynn admitted to when he retroactively registered as a foreign agent after he’d gotten caught. We know Special Counsel Robert Mueller has had a grand jury against Flynn for some time in Virginia. Mueller is intentionally making an example of Manafort, making sure his arrest is plastered all over the TV news in the most humiliating way possible. So where is Flynn’s big spectacle of an arrest? Why isn’t he being made an example of as well?

It’s entirely possible that Michael Flynn will be arrested before the day is over, as the dual arrests of Manafort and Rick Gates – along with today’s reveal of the George Papadopoulos plea deal – have made clear that Mueller is going all-in today. But even if Flynn does quietly get arrested today, he’ll have been spared the humiliation of having been the prominent first arrest out of the gate. There’s really only one reason for Mueller to give Flynn that kind of courtesy.

If Michael Flynn has cut a deal to flip on Donald Trump, he’ll still be indicted, charged, arrested, and required to plead guilty, as part of the carrying out of that deal. It’s notable that on this day, one of Donald Trump’s two key foreign agents got popped before the cameras for all to see, while the other one seems to be getting the kid gloves. Throw in Trump’s decision not to help Flynn with his legal fees, and it sounds like even the ever-oblivious Trump knows Flynn has cut a deal against him. Why would the ever-defiant Flynn cut a deal? Simple: to keep his son Michael Flynn Jr out of prison.

Keep in mind that Robert Mueller arrested Trump adviser George Papadopoulos months ago, and formally cut a deal with him weeks ago, and none of us are learning about it until today (link). So it’s entirely possible that Michael Flynn has already secretly cut a deal as well. For that matter it’s possible Flynn already surrendered himself awhile ago – which would also explain why he wasn’t popped this morning. Stay tuned.

Trump aides arrestedCastanet.net
between his campaign and the Russian government. Responding to news that two … Trump’s tweets followed news reports late Friday that a federal grand jury in Washington has approved the first charges in a criminal investigation into Russia ties led by …and more »

A former Trump aide now under federal investigation as part of the Russia probe earned millions working for a corrupt pro-Russian political party that repeatedly disparaged America’s most important military alliance.

Paul Manafort, who was Trump’s campaign chief from May to August 2016, spent nearly a decade as a consultant to Ukraine’s Party of Regions and its standardbearer, Viktor Yanukovych.

Backed by Russian-leaning oligarchs, the party opposed NATO membership and spouted anti-Western rhetoric that once helped fuel violence against American marines. Its reign ended when Yanukovych fled to Russia after bloody street protests against his personal corruption and pro-Moscow actions.

Manafort has always said he tried to Westernize the party and steer it towards a democratic model, and denies any part in anti-NATO messaging, but Ukrainian critics and U.S. diplomats who served in Kiev aren’t so sure.

Manafort also earned millions doing private business deals with some of the oligarchs who backed the party.

As NBC News previously reported, federal officials say that the money Manafort earned from both the party and the oligarchs — and what he did with it — are part of what has drawn the attention of investigators. New details keep emerging as U.S. and Ukrainian officials piece together Manafort’s contacts and payments in Ukraine from 2004 to 2014.

Manafort Goes to Ukraine

Manafort, the son of a wealthy Connecticut builder, had worked as a lobbyist and as an aide for Republican presidents before his stint in Ukraine. He had built a reputation for repackaging controversial foreign leaders for U.S. consumption. Filipino dictator Ferdinand Marcos, Angolan guerilla leader Jonas Savimbi, and Zairian strongman Mobutu Sese Seko were among his clients.

In 2004, Manafort was hired by clients in Ukraine who needed a similar image overhaul.

Viktor Yanukovych had been governor of Donetsk, a Russian-speaking region close to the Russian border, and then the prime minister of Ukraine. He and his faction, the Party of Regions, were thought by many Western observers to have links to organized crime. As a young man, Yanukovych had been convicted of robbery and assault.

John Herbst, who was U.S. ambassador to Ukraine from 2004 to 2006, said the motivations of the oligarchs who ran the party seemed uncomplicated. “My impression of Yanukovych and the others — and I knew most of the senior folks — it was all about getting rich or richer, and maintaining power.”

Aided by high-priced Russian political consultants, Yanukovych ran for president of Ukraine in 2004, and seemed to have won.

But the election was tainted by charges of fraud and corruption — most against Yanukovych and the Party of Regions — and an attempted assassination. A month prior to balloting, someone poisoned Yanukovych’s main rival, pro-Western candidate Viktor Yushchenko, and nearly killed him. On Election Day, Yanukovych, who had trailed in polls by double digits, won by three points, sparking accusations of voter fraud.

The government voided the election results and scheduled a do-over.

Richard Engel: Yanukovych is in Russia 0:49

autoplay autoplay

Weeks before the December 2004 presidential “re”-election, a pro-Russian Ukrainian billionaire and major Party of Regions donor named Rinat Akhmetov asked Manafort to help with Yanukovych’s troubled campaign.

Yanukovych lost the do-over election to Yushchenko, but Manafort won a job he would keep for a decade.

Manafort was hired to prepare the Party of Regions for the parliamentary elections of 2006, in which Yanukovych would try to reclaim the office of prime minister.

By 2006, Manafort and his team were “the principal political consultants in the Party of Regions,” said Taras Chornovil, a former Ukrainian Parliament deputy who was a member of the party from 2004 to 2007.

A leaked U.S. State Department cable from 2006 said that Manafort’s job was to give the Party of Regions an “extreme makeover” and “change its image from … a haven for mobsters into that of a legitimate political party.”

Manafort allegedly came up with the POR’s slogan for the 2006 election, “A Better Life Today.” Though Manafort couldn’t speak Russian or Ukrainian, he taught Yankovych how to give a speech and how to stay on message.

According to Chornovil, Manafort’s campaign tactics that year also included mandating that Yanukovych surrogates wear make-up and Hugo Boss suits during TV interviews. After their TV appearances, they had to return the rented suits to party headquarters, Chornovil said.

When Chornovil complained about Manafort to a close associate of Yanukovych, Chornovil said the man told him Manafort was untouchable — “a big cheese here, in charge of everything.”

Manafort was also trying to help Yanukovych expand his base of support.

Ukraine has a sharp political and geographic divide between its pro-Western, Ukrainian-speaking majority and a large Russian minority that looks East.

While other American consultants, both Democratic and Republican, were working on the campaigns of Ukraine’s pro-Western “Orange” parties, Manafort was working for a party whose base was in Russian-speaking Eastern Ukraine. Manafort’s new bosses were oligarchs friendly to Moscow, and hostile to America’s principal military alliance, NATO.

Said Herbst, “They were pro-Russian because that’s where their voters were politically and culturally. So they would not have gotten them if they were arguing for NATO — let’s join NATO — policies.”

He could attract pro-Western Ukrainians, meanwhile, by broadcasting his support for European Union membership. Some oligarchs behind the party were eager to do business with Europe anyway.

Bill Taylor, who was U.S. ambassador to Ukraine from 2006 to 2009, said Manafort would contact the U.S. embassy and tell them he was urging his client to look West. “[He said] he’d tell Yanukovych, ‘You’ll do better in Western Ukraine if you orient more toward Europe,” recalled Taylor. “‘To broaden your base, you should orient toward the EU.'”

For the next eight years, Yanukovych would adjust his positions on NATO and the EU as needed, tacking East or West depending on the electoral winds and his audience.

Sometimes his party’s public actions and Yanukovych’s private assurances to Western officials were at odds.

“[Yanukovych] was willing to allow all kinds of cooperation with NATO,” which the Russians did not like, said Amb. Herbst, “but it’s true that [Yanukovych] was organizing rallies against NATO exercises.”

Through a spokesman, Manafort says his role with Yanukovych and the POR was “strategist and consultant.” Manafort recommended “strategy and messaging,” he said, “especially as it related to the campaign and fulfillment of campaign promises.” The party’s political campaigns, said the spokesman, were “built on a foundation of economic recovery and building a relationship with the West that supported and focused on Ukraine being a part of the European Union.”

Critics of Manafort, however, insist his gameplan for the 2006 election was to drive a wedge into the electorate. Chornovil, Serhiy Leshchenko, a Ukrainian lawmaker and former investigative journalist, and Taras Berezovets, who advised one of Yanukovych’s main political foes, all say Manafort’s strategy was based on polarizing the voting public. They say he wanted to set Russian speakers against Ukrainian speakers, and supporters of Moscow against supporters of NATO.

According to Berezovets, “His idea was to [use] the matter of language to divide the electorate. The whole idea, it really worked.”

Along with advocacy of making Russian the second, official state language, Manafort pushed “anti-NATO propaganda,” said Chornovil.

Berezovets called anti-NATO rhetoric “one of the key ideas of Paul Manafort.”

A former U.S. diplomat in the region said he doubted using wedge issues like NATO was Manafort’s idea, but said, “Manafort was not above telling Yanukovych to exploit wedge issues.” He also acknowledged it could seem odd for a U.S. citizen to be advising an anti-NATO candidate: “I think he probably distinguishes his personal values from his political advice.”

Through his spokesman, Manafort said he never had anything to do with any anti-NATO rhetoric. “Mr. Manafort encouraged the POR to move towards the West and NATO.”

The Party of Regions won the parliamentary elections in 2006, making Yanukovych prime minister again.

‘I Am Trying to Play a Constructive Role’

Yanukovych had to run for prime minister again in 2007. Accusations of corruption and links to the Putin regime were damaging his client’s prospects, so Manafort went back to work grooming his image.

Responding to criticism that he was simply repackaging a flawed candidate, Manafort told the New York Times at the time, “I am not here just for the election…I am trying to play a constructive role in developing a democracy. I am helping to build a political party.”

Manafort hired the American public relations firm Edelman to boost Yanukovych’s public image in Europe and the U.S. for a monthly retainer of $35,000.

Yanukovych, meanwhile, traveled to Germany as part of a bid for European Union membership. “In public and private statements both at home and abroad,” said another leaked cable, “Yanukovych consistently reiterates his government’s commitment to Europe.”

Yanukovych lost the 2007 race. After the loss, both he and his party tacked East with overt anti-NATO rhetoric, a response to Yushchenko’s push for Ukraine to join NATO.

From January through April 2008, the Party of Regions mounted a slick, well-coordinated campaign against Ukraine’s NATO membership. The “NATO No” slogan appeared on giant television screens and mass-produced blue signs at rallies where Yanukovych spoke. The same slogan was emblazoned on blue and yellow signs carried by the party’s members of Parliament onto the floor of the Parliament in February.

Provided with examples of the messaging, Manafort’s spokesman declined to comment.

In 2010, Yanukovych ran for president again, and Manafort again worked for him. This time, Yanukovych pledged to end Ukraine’s NATO bid. Ukraine should not be a member of any military bloc, he said, because “this is the view of the Ukrainian people.” During a meeting with the U.S. ambassador, he said he wanted to “improve cooperation with the U.S. and NATO, but was also interested in “restoring” relations with Russia.

He was elected president, and this time turned East for good.

“Either Manafort was wrong about his guy, or he just didn’t care,” said Dan Fried, a former assistant secretary of state for the region under George W. Bush and Obama. “I think Manafort would’ve preferred his guy be the guy he said he was, but he was okay if he wasn’t. He was doing a job for a client. That’s it.”

A year into Yanukovych’s presidency, his administration prosecuted his chief political rival, former “Orange” Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, for allegedly abusing her position during her time in office. She was sentenced to seven years in prison. Many international observers condemned the prosecution as politically motivated.

Manafort again looked to the U.S. to burnish his client’s image, and dispel charges that Yanukovych was a corrupt, pro-Putin autocrat. He arranged for Yanukovych’s administration to hire the law firm Skadden Arps to do a legal review of the prosecution. The resulting brief pointed out some serious procedural flaws, but was largely approving of the Ukrainian court.

Around the same time, however, the Yanukovych administration began to strengthen its ties to the Putin regime and to further Russify the Party of Regions.

According to Inna Bohoslovska, who was a Party of Regions-aligned member of parliament at the time, starting in 2012, “[Ethnically] Russian candidates were placed in all the strong positions. Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Security Service.”

Yanukovych then reversed his position on integrating Ukraine with Europe. Ukraine was about to sign an EU association agreement, making its turn away from Russia and towards the West official, when Yanukovych backed out a week before an official signing ceremony.

Said Fried, “[Yanukovych] broke more than a campaign promise, he broke his compact with the Ukrainian people.”

Yanukovych’s popularity plummeted. His EU decision ignited massive demonstrations in the streets of Kiev, with some crowds as big as 1 million. Ukrainian police cracked down on protestors, and both police and protestors were killed in street violence that took at least 100 lives.

After three months of demonstrations, Yanukovych was ousted as president in February 2014. He fled to Russia. Activists broke into Mezhyhirya, his ornate presidential palace, and were outraged by its gold-plated opulence. “[Manafort] knew that the president’s salary was not enough for the luxury of the Mezhyhirya, so he should have been aware that it was anything but legal money,” said a top Ukrainian anti-corruption investigator.

Manafort’s allies have said that Yanukovych stopped listening to Manafort after he became president in 2010, and that Manafort warned him of the consequences of actions like prosecuting Tymoshenko. Manafort’s spokesman said Manafort “was not involved in any of the actions taken in the street riots and opposed the use of force.”

“If you’re going to work for someone like Yanukovych,” said Fried, “there’s a time to jump ship, and that’s when he starts shooting people.”

Manafort returned to Ukraine after Yanukovych fled the country. He tried, with limited success, to help remnants of the Party of Regions regain power in the October 2014 parliamentary elections.

Yanukovych remains in Russia. He has been sanctioned by the EU and the U.S. for the Crimea invasion, and is wanted by Ukraine for a long list of charges that have included corruption and murder.

“Yanukovych was so awful,” said Fried. “That’s not Manafort’s fault, but the fact that Manafort helped Yanukovych win an election didn’t do Ukraine any good.”

Who Paid The Bills?

Manafort says the 2014 election was his last in Ukraine, and he is done with Ukrainian politics.

But he is now facing questions from Congress and federal investigators about how he was paid for his political work, what he did with the money he earned, and what other business relationships he developed while in Ukraine.

A Party of Regions accounting book, dubbed the “black ledger” and obtained in August by Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU), allegedly shows that Manafort was paid $12.7 million in cash by the party between Nov. 2007 and Oct. 2012.

The ledger records what Ukrainian investigators say were off-the-books payments by the Party of Regions to election officials, party functionaries, and members of parliament. Manafort appears as an intended recipient in the ledger 22 times from 2007 until 2012, according to the NABU. The Bureau notes that the entries are not themselves proof that the payments were made.

In March, journalist Serhiy Leshchenko made waves when he said he had obtained an invoice on Manafort company letterhead detailing how Manafort received money from a shell company in Belize for the alleged sale of 500 computers.

The date on the invoice and the amount of money match an entry in the black ledger marked “Manafort.” Manafort’s spokesman dismissed the invoice and letterhead as fabricated. The shell company, Neocom Systems Ltd., was registered with Belize’s International Business Company Registry, but the principal of the firm that registered the shell company told NBC News he had only dealt with its lawyers, and couldn’t provide any information about its owners. It was struck from the registry in 2011 and dissolved in 2014, according to the Belizean registry.

Manafort has described the ledger as a forgery. He says any payments he received from Ukraine were legitimate compensation for his work as a consultant, and the payments were lawfully wired to him.

Manafort’s spokesman told NBC News that Manafort “has no knowledge of any payment ledger. Mr. Manafort was only paid via wire — not cash — through U.S. institutions, typically using clients’ preferred financial institutions and instructions.”

The spokesman said Manafort declined to answer whether he had reported to the U.S. government all money and income received from Ukraine.

Ukrainian investigators told NBC News they are now looking into Manafort’s role in the Skadden deal, but say Manafort is not a suspect in any of their investigations.

Manafort also did business with several Ukrainian and Russian oligarchs.

In 2008, Manafort and his real estate partners courted a Ukrainian oligarch named Dmytro Firtash, a major Party of Regions backer, in an $850 million plan to redevelop a famous New York hotel, the Drake. The plan never bore fruit.

Fugitive Ukrainian president vows to fight 6:08

autoplay autoplay

Firtash, who acknowledged to the U.S. ambassador that he got his start in business with the permission of a Russian crime lord, according to a leaked cable, is under federal indictment in the Northern District of Illinois for bribery. He is under arrest in Austria pending his extradition to the U.S.

In 2007, Manafort went into business with Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska to invest in Ukrainian and European assets. Manafort’s partner Rick Gates “regularly visited” the Moscow offices of Deripaska’s representatives to discuss the investments, according to a later lawsuit.

In 2007 and 2008, companies controlled by Deripaska paid $26.25 million in investment capital and management fees to Manafort and his partners for a deal to buy a cable television company in Ukraine, according to a U.S. court filing. According to Manafort’s spokesman, all the capital was paid to the seller of the company, but Deripaska’s legal representatives alleged the investment was never actually made.

By 2014, Manafort and Deripaska had fallen out over the cable deal, which never materialized.

The sources told NBC News’ Richard Engel that after certain transactions raised concern, the bank began investigating the accounts for possible money-laundering. Manafort closed some of the accounts in 2012.

A spokesman for Manafort told NBC News that all the accounts were set up at the direction of clients in Cyprus, a common banking center for Russians and Ukrainians, “for a legitimate business purpose.”

A source familiar with the matter said New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is taking “a preliminary look” at Manafort’s real estate transactions.

Putin on Ukraine: ‘This is an Unconstitutional Coup’ 2:39

autoplay autoplay

Manafort said his transactions were “executed in a transparent fashion and my identity was disclosed — in fact my name is right there on the documents.”

In September 2016, NBC News has reported Manafort took out a mortgage on his home in Bridgehampton, New York, but no mortgage notice was ever filed and no mortgage tax paid, according to Suffolk County records. His name did not appear on any publicly available documents.

The geopolitical aspect of the Manafort’s Ukraine involvement and Trump campaign involvement: Germany achieved her old plans and dreams: the control of Ukraine, the most appetizing “morsel” left in the Eastern Europe, after the Russian bear withdrew; grudgingly, fighting, yelling, screaming, appropriating Crimea, and destabilizing the Eastern Ukraine. This control would be incomplete without the sidelining of the US, Germany’s major competitor in the region after the Russian influence had waned.

It is conceivable that the “Manafort affair” was engineered by the German Intelligence, as a part of the larger “Trump affair”, to further discredit Yanukovych, and to solidify the Germany’s control over Ukraine during and by Poroshenko’s rule.

Apparently, Manafort was recommended and introduced to Yanukovych camp by Putin and Deripaska, as the convenient Western and American tool, at the elections time. When things went sour, and Yanukovich fled, the role of the Manafort & Co started to unravel, further discrediting Yanukovich and his “American team”, thus helping to sideline the “wild greedy Americans” who manufacture the elections according to their secret politico-technological recipes, in contrast to the “noble Germans”, the “real protectors” of the “free elections” and the “democratic values”.

The recent, unconfirmed, and somewhat strange and puzzling, press reports about the fistfight between Putin and Yanukovych in Sochi, on April 1, 2017, during which Yanukovich was shot in a leg by Putin’s bodyguard, may help to clarify the emotional dynamics between them.

Yanukovych probably felt deceived and betrayed by Putin’s recommendation of Manafort to him, and this may explain his intense anger if this fight indeed took place, which I think, it did: the reports read like a lot of mysterious, confused, and the disinformational smoke behind the very real fire, which was hard to conceal, especially if Yanukovych was indeed shot in a leg during this exchange.

Germany’s gain in these games is evident, and this once again opens the question about her role and planning of the “Trump affair” and the Manafort “sub-affair”, or a subplot.

It would also be very hard to believe that, given the degree of the German interest and involvement, they did not know about Paul Manafort and his shenanigans. I think they were involved quite actively.

A former Trump aide now under federal investigation as part of the Russia probe earned millions working for a corrupt pro-Russian political party that repeatedly disparaged America’s most important military alliance.

Paul Manafort, who was Trump’s campaign chief from May to August 2016, spent nearly a decade as a consultant to Ukraine’s Party of Regions and its standardbearer, Viktor Yanukovych.

Backed by Russian-leaning oligarchs, the party opposed NATO membership and spouted anti-Western rhetoric that once helped fuel violence against American marines. Its reign ended when Yanukovych fled to Russia after bloody street protests against his personal corruption and pro-Moscow actions.

Manafort has always said he tried to Westernize the party and steer it towards a democratic model, and denies any part in anti-NATO messaging, but Ukrainian critics and U.S. diplomats who served in Kiev aren’t so sure.

Manafort also earned millions doing private business deals with some of the oligarchs who backed the party.

As NBC News previously reported, federal officials say that the money Manafort earned from both the party and the oligarchs — and what he did with it — are part of what has drawn the attention of investigators. New details keep emerging as U.S. and Ukrainian officials piece together Manafort’s contacts and payments in Ukraine from 2004 to 2014.

Manafort Goes to Ukraine

Manafort, the son of a wealthy Connecticut builder, had worked as a lobbyist and as an aide for Republican presidents before his stint in Ukraine. He had built a reputation for repackaging controversial foreign leaders for U.S. consumption. Filipino dictator Ferdinand Marcos, Angolan guerilla leader Jonas Savimbi, and Zairian strongman Mobutu Sese Seko were among his clients.

In 2004, Manafort was hired by clients in Ukraine who needed a similar image overhaul.

Viktor Yanukovych had been governor of Donetsk, a Russian-speaking region close to the Russian border, and then the prime minister of Ukraine. He and his faction, the Party of Regions, were thought by many Western observers to have links to organized crime. As a young man, Yanukovych had been convicted of robbery and assault.

John Herbst, who was U.S. ambassador to Ukraine from 2004 to 2006, said the motivations of the oligarchs who ran the party seemed uncomplicated. “My impression of Yanukovych and the others — and I knew most of the senior folks — it was all about getting rich or richer, and maintaining power.”

Aided by high-priced Russian political consultants, Yanukovych ran for president of Ukraine in 2004, and seemed to have won.

But the election was tainted by charges of fraud and corruption — most against Yanukovych and the Party of Regions — and an attempted assassination. A month prior to balloting, someone poisoned Yanukovych’s main rival, pro-Western candidate Viktor Yushchenko, and nearly killed him. On Election Day, Yanukovych, who had trailed in polls by double digits, won by three points, sparking accusations of voter fraud.

The government voided the election results and scheduled a do-over.

Richard Engel: Yanukovych is in Russia 0:49

autoplay autoplay

Weeks before the December 2004 presidential “re”-election, a pro-Russian Ukrainian billionaire and major Party of Regions donor named Rinat Akhmetov asked Manafort to help with Yanukovych’s troubled campaign.

Yanukovych lost the do-over election to Yushchenko, but Manafort won a job he would keep for a decade.

Manafort was hired to prepare the Party of Regions for the parliamentary elections of 2006, in which Yanukovych would try to reclaim the office of prime minister.

By 2006, Manafort and his team were “the principal political consultants in the Party of Regions,” said Taras Chornovil, a former Ukrainian Parliament deputy who was a member of the party from 2004 to 2007.

A leaked U.S. State Department cable from 2006 said that Manafort’s job was to give the Party of Regions an “extreme makeover” and “change its image from … a haven for mobsters into that of a legitimate political party.”

Manafort allegedly came up with the POR’s slogan for the 2006 election, “A Better Life Today.” Though Manafort couldn’t speak Russian or Ukrainian, he taught Yankovych how to give a speech and how to stay on message.

According to Chornovil, Manafort’s campaign tactics that year also included mandating that Yanukovych surrogates wear make-up and Hugo Boss suits during TV interviews. After their TV appearances, they had to return the rented suits to party headquarters, Chornovil said.

When Chornovil complained about Manafort to a close associate of Yanukovych, Chornovil said the man told him Manafort was untouchable — “a big cheese here, in charge of everything.”

Manafort was also trying to help Yanukovych expand his base of support.

Ukraine has a sharp political and geographic divide between its pro-Western, Ukrainian-speaking majority and a large Russian minority that looks East.

While other American consultants, both Democratic and Republican, were working on the campaigns of Ukraine’s pro-Western “Orange” parties, Manafort was working for a party whose base was in Russian-speaking Eastern Ukraine. Manafort’s new bosses were oligarchs friendly to Moscow, and hostile to America’s principal military alliance, NATO.

Said Herbst, “They were pro-Russian because that’s where their voters were politically and culturally. So they would not have gotten them if they were arguing for NATO — let’s join NATO — policies.”

He could attract pro-Western Ukrainians, meanwhile, by broadcasting his support for European Union membership. Some oligarchs behind the party were eager to do business with Europe anyway.

Bill Taylor, who was U.S. ambassador to Ukraine from 2006 to 2009, said Manafort would contact the U.S. embassy and tell them he was urging his client to look West. “[He said] he’d tell Yanukovych, ‘You’ll do better in Western Ukraine if you orient more toward Europe,” recalled Taylor. “‘To broaden your base, you should orient toward the EU.'”

For the next eight years, Yanukovych would adjust his positions on NATO and the EU as needed, tacking East or West depending on the electoral winds and his audience.

Sometimes his party’s public actions and Yanukovych’s private assurances to Western officials were at odds.

“[Yanukovych] was willing to allow all kinds of cooperation with NATO,” which the Russians did not like, said Amb. Herbst, “but it’s true that [Yanukovych] was organizing rallies against NATO exercises.”

Through a spokesman, Manafort says his role with Yanukovych and the POR was “strategist and consultant.” Manafort recommended “strategy and messaging,” he said, “especially as it related to the campaign and fulfillment of campaign promises.” The party’s political campaigns, said the spokesman, were “built on a foundation of economic recovery and building a relationship with the West that supported and focused on Ukraine being a part of the European Union.”

Critics of Manafort, however, insist his gameplan for the 2006 election was to drive a wedge into the electorate. Chornovil, Serhiy Leshchenko, a Ukrainian lawmaker and former investigative journalist, and Taras Berezovets, who advised one of Yanukovych’s main political foes, all say Manafort’s strategy was based on polarizing the voting public. They say he wanted to set Russian speakers against Ukrainian speakers, and supporters of Moscow against supporters of NATO.

According to Berezovets, “His idea was to [use] the matter of language to divide the electorate. The whole idea, it really worked.”

Along with advocacy of making Russian the second, official state language, Manafort pushed “anti-NATO propaganda,” said Chornovil.

Berezovets called anti-NATO rhetoric “one of the key ideas of Paul Manafort.”

A former U.S. diplomat in the region said he doubted using wedge issues like NATO was Manafort’s idea, but said, “Manafort was not above telling Yanukovych to exploit wedge issues.” He also acknowledged it could seem odd for a U.S. citizen to be advising an anti-NATO candidate: “I think he probably distinguishes his personal values from his political advice.”

Through his spokesman, Manafort said he never had anything to do with any anti-NATO rhetoric. “Mr. Manafort encouraged the POR to move towards the West and NATO.”

The Party of Regions won the parliamentary elections in 2006, making Yanukovych prime minister again.

‘I Am Trying to Play a Constructive Role’

Yanukovych had to run for prime minister again in 2007. Accusations of corruption and links to the Putin regime were damaging his client’s prospects, so Manafort went back to work grooming his image.

Responding to criticism that he was simply repackaging a flawed candidate, Manafort told the New York Times at the time, “I am not here just for the election…I am trying to play a constructive role in developing a democracy. I am helping to build a political party.”

Manafort hired the American public relations firm Edelman to boost Yanukovych’s public image in Europe and the U.S. for a monthly retainer of $35,000.

Yanukovych, meanwhile, traveled to Germany as part of a bid for European Union membership. “In public and private statements both at home and abroad,” said another leaked cable, “Yanukovych consistently reiterates his government’s commitment to Europe.”

Yanukovych lost the 2007 race. After the loss, both he and his party tacked East with overt anti-NATO rhetoric, a response to Yushchenko’s push for Ukraine to join NATO.

From January through April 2008, the Party of Regions mounted a slick, well-coordinated campaign against Ukraine’s NATO membership. The “NATO No” slogan appeared on giant television screens and mass-produced blue signs at rallies where Yanukovych spoke. The same slogan was emblazoned on blue and yellow signs carried by the party’s members of Parliament onto the floor of the Parliament in February.

Provided with examples of the messaging, Manafort’s spokesman declined to comment.

In 2010, Yanukovych ran for president again, and Manafort again worked for him. This time, Yanukovych pledged to end Ukraine’s NATO bid. Ukraine should not be a member of any military bloc, he said, because “this is the view of the Ukrainian people.” During a meeting with the U.S. ambassador, he said he wanted to “improve cooperation with the U.S. and NATO, but was also interested in “restoring” relations with Russia.

He was elected president, and this time turned East for good.

“Either Manafort was wrong about his guy, or he just didn’t care,” said Dan Fried, a former assistant secretary of state for the region under George W. Bush and Obama. “I think Manafort would’ve preferred his guy be the guy he said he was, but he was okay if he wasn’t. He was doing a job for a client. That’s it.”

A year into Yanukovych’s presidency, his administration prosecuted his chief political rival, former “Orange” Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, for allegedly abusing her position during her time in office. She was sentenced to seven years in prison. Many international observers condemned the prosecution as politically motivated.

Manafort again looked to the U.S. to burnish his client’s image, and dispel charges that Yanukovych was a corrupt, pro-Putin autocrat. He arranged for Yanukovych’s administration to hire the law firm Skadden Arps to do a legal review of the prosecution. The resulting brief pointed out some serious procedural flaws, but was largely approving of the Ukrainian court.

Around the same time, however, the Yanukovych administration began to strengthen its ties to the Putin regime and to further Russify the Party of Regions.

According to Inna Bohoslovska, who was a Party of Regions-aligned member of parliament at the time, starting in 2012, “[Ethnically] Russian candidates were placed in all the strong positions. Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Security Service.”

Yanukovych then reversed his position on integrating Ukraine with Europe. Ukraine was about to sign an EU association agreement, making its turn away from Russia and towards the West official, when Yanukovych backed out a week before an official signing ceremony.

Said Fried, “[Yanukovych] broke more than a campaign promise, he broke his compact with the Ukrainian people.”

Yanukovych’s popularity plummeted. His EU decision ignited massive demonstrations in the streets of Kiev, with some crowds as big as 1 million. Ukrainian police cracked down on protestors, and both police and protestors were killed in street violence that took at least 100 lives.

After three months of demonstrations, Yanukovych was ousted as president in February 2014. He fled to Russia. Activists broke into Mezhyhirya, his ornate presidential palace, and were outraged by its gold-plated opulence. “[Manafort] knew that the president’s salary was not enough for the luxury of the Mezhyhirya, so he should have been aware that it was anything but legal money,” said a top Ukrainian anti-corruption investigator.

Manafort’s allies have said that Yanukovych stopped listening to Manafort after he became president in 2010, and that Manafort warned him of the consequences of actions like prosecuting Tymoshenko. Manafort’s spokesman said Manafort “was not involved in any of the actions taken in the street riots and opposed the use of force.”

“If you’re going to work for someone like Yanukovych,” said Fried, “there’s a time to jump ship, and that’s when he starts shooting people.”

Manafort returned to Ukraine after Yanukovych fled the country. He tried, with limited success, to help remnants of the Party of Regions regain power in the October 2014 parliamentary elections.

Yanukovych remains in Russia. He has been sanctioned by the EU and the U.S. for the Crimea invasion, and is wanted by Ukraine for a long list of charges that have included corruption and murder.

“Yanukovych was so awful,” said Fried. “That’s not Manafort’s fault, but the fact that Manafort helped Yanukovych win an election didn’t do Ukraine any good.”

Who Paid The Bills?

Manafort says the 2014 election was his last in Ukraine, and he is done with Ukrainian politics.

But he is now facing questions from Congress and federal investigators about how he was paid for his political work, what he did with the money he earned, and what other business relationships he developed while in Ukraine.

A Party of Regions accounting book, dubbed the “black ledger” and obtained in August by Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU), allegedly shows that Manafort was paid $12.7 million in cash by the party between Nov. 2007 and Oct. 2012.

The ledger records what Ukrainian investigators say were off-the-books payments by the Party of Regions to election officials, party functionaries, and members of parliament. Manafort appears as an intended recipient in the ledger 22 times from 2007 until 2012, according to the NABU. The Bureau notes that the entries are not themselves proof that the payments were made.

In March, journalist Serhiy Leshchenko made waves when he said he had obtained an invoice on Manafort company letterhead detailing how Manafort received money from a shell company in Belize for the alleged sale of 500 computers.

The date on the invoice and the amount of money match an entry in the black ledger marked “Manafort.” Manafort’s spokesman dismissed the invoice and letterhead as fabricated. The shell company, Neocom Systems Ltd., was registered with Belize’s International Business Company Registry, but the principal of the firm that registered the shell company told NBC News he had only dealt with its lawyers, and couldn’t provide any information about its owners. It was struck from the registry in 2011 and dissolved in 2014, according to the Belizean registry.

Manafort has described the ledger as a forgery. He says any payments he received from Ukraine were legitimate compensation for his work as a consultant, and the payments were lawfully wired to him.

Manafort’s spokesman told NBC News that Manafort “has no knowledge of any payment ledger. Mr. Manafort was only paid via wire — not cash — through U.S. institutions, typically using clients’ preferred financial institutions and instructions.”

The spokesman said Manafort declined to answer whether he had reported to the U.S. government all money and income received from Ukraine.

Ukrainian investigators told NBC News they are now looking into Manafort’s role in the Skadden deal, but say Manafort is not a suspect in any of their investigations.

Manafort also did business with several Ukrainian and Russian oligarchs.

In 2008, Manafort and his real estate partners courted a Ukrainian oligarch named Dmytro Firtash, a major Party of Regions backer, in an $850 million plan to redevelop a famous New York hotel, the Drake. The plan never bore fruit.

Fugitive Ukrainian president vows to fight 6:08

autoplay autoplay

Firtash, who acknowledged to the U.S. ambassador that he got his start in business with the permission of a Russian crime lord, according to a leaked cable, is under federal indictment in the Northern District of Illinois for bribery. He is under arrest in Austria pending his extradition to the U.S.

In 2007, Manafort went into business with Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska to invest in Ukrainian and European assets. Manafort’s partner Rick Gates “regularly visited” the Moscow offices of Deripaska’s representatives to discuss the investments, according to a later lawsuit.

In 2007 and 2008, companies controlled by Deripaska paid $26.25 million in investment capital and management fees to Manafort and his partners for a deal to buy a cable television company in Ukraine, according to a U.S. court filing. According to Manafort’s spokesman, all the capital was paid to the seller of the company, but Deripaska’s legal representatives alleged the investment was never actually made.

By 2014, Manafort and Deripaska had fallen out over the cable deal, which never materialized.

The sources told NBC News’ Richard Engel that after certain transactions raised concern, the bank began investigating the accounts for possible money-laundering. Manafort closed some of the accounts in 2012.

A spokesman for Manafort told NBC News that all the accounts were set up at the direction of clients in Cyprus, a common banking center for Russians and Ukrainians, “for a legitimate business purpose.”

A source familiar with the matter said New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is taking “a preliminary look” at Manafort’s real estate transactions.

Putin on Ukraine: ‘This is an Unconstitutional Coup’ 2:39

autoplay autoplay

Manafort said his transactions were “executed in a transparent fashion and my identity was disclosed — in fact my name is right there on the documents.”

In September 2016, NBC News has reported Manafort took out a mortgage on his home in Bridgehampton, New York, but no mortgage notice was ever filed and no mortgage tax paid, according to Suffolk County records. His name did not appear on any publicly available documents.

Democratic lobbyist Tony Podesta and the Podesta Group, his powerful Washington firm, are now caught up in a federal criminal investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller. They may have violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act by failing to properly disclose work completed on behalf of a pro-Vladimir Putin Ukrainian think tank to the Justice Department.

By filing a retroactive FARA disclosure this April, the firm admitted those lobbying efforts, which took place between 2012 and 2014 on behalf of the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine, may have principally benefitted that country’s government. The investigation of Podesta grew out of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe of Paul Manafort, according to NBC News, which broke the story on Monday. Manafort and associate Rick Gates introduced the Podesta Group and another lobbying firm, Mercury LLC, to the ECMU, per Gates’ account.

The Podesta Group’s involvement with the ECMU was first reported in an Associated Press story on Manafort, then-Trump campaign chairman, in August of 2016. The firm maintained it did not have reason to believe its work on behalf of the ECMU warranted a FARA disclosure in 2012, but nevertheless filed a belated disclosure this spring after exposure in the press.

Speaking to news outlets over the past 14 months, several sources have cast doubt on the Podesta Group’s insistence that it was unaware the nature of its work warranted disclosure to the DOJ.

In the AP’s initial report, a former Podesta employee “said Gates described the nonprofit’s role in an April 2012 meeting as supplying a source of money that could not be traced to the Ukrainian politicians who were paying him and Manafort.” Three other current and former Podesta employees told the AP disagreements broke out between staff over its decision to take on the work, which one of those sources considered to be “obviously illegal.”

After the Podesta Group filed retroactively in April, CNN spoke to people who had been lobbied by the firm over the course of its work for the ECMU. Dan Harsha, who was lobbied in 2013 while serving as communications director for Democrats on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told CNN “It seemed pretty clear [the center] was just a front” for former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. A former State Department employee who met with the Podesta group around the time of Ukraine’s “bellwether” parliamentary elections in 2012 said, “They were pretty open about their purpose being to give a positive perspective on the upcoming election.”

CNN reported that seven sources said the Podesta Group “left a clear impression that they were representing Ukraine’s government” as lobbyists held meetings around Washington.

In that case, the firm’s decision not to file with the DOJ until after its work for the ECMU leaked into the press, and then after the 2016 presidential election, looks highly suspect. As the AP put it, “Lobbyists in general prefer not to register under the foreign agents law because its requirements are so much more demanding, making their activities more open to public scrutiny.”

In addition to his brother John Podesta’s position at the helm of the campaign, it’s well worth noting, as most outlets have failed to do, that Tony Podesta was a prominent fundraiser for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 bid for the White House.

The Podesta Group’s efforts on behalf of the ECMU, per its belated disclosures, show the firm made contact with Clinton’s State Department, the National Security Council, and the office of former Vice President Joe Biden over the course of its lobbying campaign to soften the Obama administration’s position towards Ukraine’s then-pro-Russian government.

In his investigation, Mueller will likely probe what Podesta and his firm knew about the ECMU’s connections to the Ukrainian government when deciding how to disclose its lobbying efforts on their behalf.

POLTAVA, Ukraine — After four years of investigation by the German police, the F.B.I. … Mr. Manafort’sactivities in Ukraine predate Ukraine’s 2014 … and former Manafort client — Viktor F. Yanukovych, who fled to Russia in …

Paul Manafort, a former senior adviser and campaign manager to Donald Trump, at Trump … The report said, “Yanukovych assured Putin that there was no … pertaining to his daughter’s education at the German school Salem.

Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his longtime business partner Rick Gates have been charged in a 12-count indictment with conspiracy to launder money, making false statements and other charges stemming from probes into possible Russian influence in U.S. political affairs.

The indictment, unsealed Monday, marked the first criminal allegations to come from Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation into possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia to influence the 2016 election. The two men are expected to make their first court appearance before U.S. Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson at 1:30 p.m.

The charges did not reference the Trump campaign. Instead, they focused on Manafort’s and Gates’s work advising a Russia-friendly political party in Ukraine.

Former campaign manager for President Trump, Paul Manafort, entered an FBI field office in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 30, following reports that he plans to turn himself in for charges stemming from an investigation into possible Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Former campaign manager for President Trump, Paul Manafort, entered an FBI field office in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 30, following reports that he plans to turn (Reuters)

Former campaign manager for President Trump, Paul Manafort, entered an FBI field office in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 30, following reports that he plans to turn himself in for charges stemming from an investigation into possible Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. (Reuters)

The special counsel alleged that for nearly a decade, the two men laundered money through scores of U.S. and foreign corporations, partnerships and bank accounts, and gave false statements to the Justice Department and others when asked about their work on behalf of a foreign entity.

All told, more than $75 million flowed through offshore accounts, the special counsel alleged. Manafort, the special counsel said, laundered more than $18 million, using his wealth acquired overseas to “enjoy a lavish lifestyle” in the United States, purchasing multi-million dollar properties and paying for home renovation.

Gates did not respond to a request for comment, nor did Jason Maloni, a spokesman for Manafort. Manafort was spotted walking into the FBI’s Washington Field Office Monday morning.

In back-to-back tweets, Trump tried to distance his campaign from the charges.

“Sorry, but this is years ago, before Paul Manafort was part of the Trump campaign. But why aren’t Crooked Hillary & the Dems the focus?????” he wrote.

Spokespeople for Mueller and the Justice Department declined to comment over the weekend. A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment Monday, and a spokesman for the special counsel’s office did not return messages seeking comment.

According to the indictment, Manafort and Gates arranged to hire two Washington-based lobbying firms to work on behalf of their Ukrainian clients, arranging meetings with U.S. officials and boosting their public image in the United States.

Prosecutors say, however, that Manafort and Gates arranged for a Brussels-based nonprofit to nominally hire the companies to hide the fact that their work was for Ukrainian government officials and would otherwise require registration under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

In fact, prosecutors allege, Manafort was communicating directly with then-Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych about the effort, promising in 2012 to provide him weekly updates about the effort.

To further obscure Ukrainian involvement in the lobbying effort, prosecutors say payments to the Washington firms were routed through obscure offshore companies. Prosecutors say that when the Department of Justice approached Manafort and Gates in 2016 and 2017 about whether they should have registered as foreign agents for the work, they responded with false and misleading letters, indicating they had not directed the lobbying effort and asserting they did not hold records reflecting their work, even though later searches showed they did, according to the indictment.

Manafort and Gates also were accused of willfully and intentionally trying to hide monies kept in foreign bank accounts — Manafort from 2011 to 2014 and Gates from 2012 to 2014 . And Manafort was accused of filing fraudulent tax returns — stating on tax forms he filed from 2008 to 2014 that he controlled no foreign bank accounts.

The men made tens of millions of dollars for themselves, the special counsel alleged. From 2008 to 2014, according to the indictment, Manafort arranged to wire $12 million from offshore accounts to pay for personal expenses – including $5 million to a home renovation contractor in the Hamptons, more than $1.3 million to a home entertainment and lighting vendor based in Florida, $934,000 to an antique rug dealer in Alexandria, and $849,000 to a men’s clothier in New York.

While the men were set to first appear before a magistrate judge — as is normal — the case was assigned to U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, 63, a 2011 Barack Obama appointee.

Jackson worked as federal prosecutor in the District after graduating from Harvard Law School and specialized in complex criminal and civil trials and appeals at Trout Cacheris. While at the firm, she represented former Democratic congressman William J. Jefferson at his corruption trial, made famous by the $90,000 in bribe money stuffed into his freezer and a legal battle over the raid of his Washington office.

Mueller was appointed in May to oversee the probe of possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia, taking over work that the FBI had begun in July 2016. Their interest in Manafort, though, dates back to at least 2014 — long before Mueller was appointed or Manafort was connected to the Trump campaign.

While Mueller’s probe has focused on Manafort and former national security adviser Michael Flynn, investigators have shown interest in a broad array of other topics.

Those include meetings the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, had with the Russian ambassador and a banker from Moscow in December, and a June 2016 meeting at Trump tower involving the president’s son, Donald Jr., and a Russian lawyer. Mueller’s team has requested extensive records from the White House, covering areas including the president’s private discussions about firing James B. Comey as FBI director and his response to news that Flynn was under investigation, according to two people briefed on the requests.

Mueller is also investigating whether Trump obstructed justice leading up to Comey’s firing. His team has been actively presenting records and bringing witnesses before the grand jury in D.C. for the last three months.

FBI agents working for Mueller raided Manafort’s home in Alexandria in late July, armed with a search warrant that allowed them to enter at dawn without warning the occupants. Such an invasive search is only allowed after prosecutors have persuaded a federal judge that they have evidence of a crime and they have reasonable concern that key evidence could be destroyed or withheld.

Prosecutors also warned Manafort they planned to indict him, according to two people familiar with the exchange. People close to Manafort and Gates, though, said the indictment came as a surprise to both.

Though both men knew Mueller had been closely scrutinizing their behavior, they had expected some kind of alert when an indictment was imminent. Even over the weekend, they were telling people close to them that they had received no such notification and did not believe they were the subject of the seal charges.

The tactic might suggest Mueller hoped to use the element of surprise against the two men to potentially stun them into a desire to cooperate against other members of Trump’s team.

world

national-security

Dallas shooting updates

News and analysis on the deadliest day for police since 9/11.

post_newsletter353

follow-dallas

true

endOfArticle

false

Checkpoint newsletter

Military, defense and security at home and abroad.

false

The story must be told.

Your subscription supports journalism that matters.

Flynn’s lawyer, Robert Kelner, said late Friday, “we are not commenting tonight.” A person familiar with Flynn’s defense said he, too, had received no notice of pending indictment.

Wayne Holland, a McEnearney Associates real estate agent who helped Manafort buy the condo in Alexandria, Va., that was raided by the FBI this summer, testified Oct. 20 before the grand jury in Mueller’s probe after he and his firm were unsuccessful in an effort to quash subpoenas, Holland said Friday.

Holland declined to discuss his testimony, first reported by Politico, but confirmed that an opinion unsealed Friday denied his and his firm’s motion to quash a subpoena by claiming real estate broker records are confidential under Virginia and District laws.

READ: Federal grand jury indictment against Manafort, GatesCNN
(CNN) Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and former Trump campaign official Rick Gates surrendered Monday to Justice Department special counsel Robert Mueller, according to a source with direct knowledge of the matter. Read the unsealed …

The charges against two top officials from President Donald Trump’s campaign signals a dramatic new phase of Mueller’s wide-ranging investigation into possible collusion between the Russian government and members of Trump’s team as well as potential obstruction of justice and financial crimes.

A White House spokesman told CNN the Trump administration “may not have a response at all” regarding the charges.

Manafort, whose work for former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych has attracted scrutiny from federal investigators, has previously denied financial wrongdoing regarding his Ukraine-related payments, his bank accounts in offshore tax shelters and his various real-estate transactions over the years. Gates, who has also denied wrongdoing, was Manafort’s longtime business associate in his lobbying firm before being tapped as his deputy on the Trump campaign.

They are the first two officials in Trump’s orbit charged in connection with the special counsel investigation, which is exploring whether Trump’s actions surrounding the firing of former FBI Director James Comey amount to obstruction of justice. Mueller has taken a broad approach to his mandate that includes a focus on the financial dealings of Trump’s team.

How Digital Inexperience Paid Off in the Trump CampaignCivicist
How the hell did team Trump leapfrog team Clinton in the use of social media for campaigning? The answer, I think, dates back to a digital experiment from the 2014 election, and the broader trend toward experimentally-informed campaigns. Facebook was …

If you made a list of the factors that landed Donald Trump in the White House, Trump campaign digital director Brad Parscale would put Facebook near the top. “Facebook now lets you get to places—and places possibly that you would never go with TV ads,” Parscale told CBS earlier this month. “Now, I can find, you know, 15 people in the Florida Panhandle that I would never buy a TV commercial for. And, we took opportunities that I think the other side didn’t.” The relationship with Silicon Valley wasn’t one sided: as major tech companies face mounting criticism for allowing political disinformation to proliferate on their platforms, a new study suggests that employees at Facebook, Google, and Twitter also took on crucial roles within the Trump campaign, acting more like political strategists than on-site salespeople.

The collaboration allowed Team Trump to shore up its digital operations in a way that would have been difficult to accomplish on its own, according to Politico, which got an early look at the study. Embedded tech employees took on responsibilities such as targeting hard-to-reach voters and coming up with responses to probable lines of attack during debates. “Facebook, Twitter, and Google [went] beyond promoting their services and facilitating digital advertising buys,” the peer-reviewed paper concludes. The companies “actively [shaped] campaign communications through their close collaboration with political staffers.”

The Clinton campaign turned down the assistance, which Facebook, Google, and Twitter all offered to 2016 candidates free of charge. (One tech company employee in the study said her campaign “viewed us as vendors rather than consultants.”) The Trump campaign, on the other hand, used the “embeds” extensively during the general election. Ultimately, the work each company did for Trump—Google recommending geographically targeted ads, Twitter analyzing the success of tweet-based fundraising efforts, and Facebook identifying which pictures performed best on Instagram, for instance—helped close the gap between him and Clinton, experts cited in the study conclude.

The collaboration likely proved lucrative for all three companies. Online political-ad spending during the 2016 election totaled $1.4 billion—the Trump campaign spent $70 million on Facebook alone, making client services a valuable extension of Facebook’s ad product. The collaboration also conferred additional benefits, as Politico points out: national exposure, a testing ground for new features and products, and the chance to build a relationship with a candidate who might end up holding the regulatory reins once in office.

In the wake of Trump’s victory, Silicon Valley is facing difficult questions about that symbiotic relationship, and a potential regulatory reckoning. It also underscores a nearly universal truth about how the tech and media industries treated the 2016 presidential race: employees at Facebook and Twitter, among other companies in the overwhelmingly liberal Bay Area, never really expected Trump to win.

Follow to get the latest news and analysis about the players in your inbox.

The key to Mueller’s investigation of TrumpSalon
The Trump campaign’s digital operations were overseen by Kushner. Now corroborating details are emerging. Facebook disclosed that Russian entitites had bought more than 3,000 politically charged ads estimated at $150,000 on its platform during key …

Russia Uses Its Oil Giant, Rosneft, as a Foreign Policy ToolNew York Times
The company, which Russia has long relied on to finance its government and social programs, has been pushing deeply into politically sensitive countries like Cuba, China, Egypt and Vietnam, as well as tumultuous places where American interests are at …

How Digital Inexperience Paid Off in the Trump CampaignCivicist
How the hell did team Trump leapfrog team Clinton in the use of social media for campaigning? The answer, I think, dates back to a digital experiment from the 2014 election, and the broader trend toward experimentally-informed campaigns. Facebook was …

How Digital Inexperience Paid Off in the Trump CampaignCivicist
How the hell did team Trump leapfrog team Clinton in the use of social media for campaigning? The answer, I think, dates back to a digital experiment from the 2014 election, and the broader trend toward experimentally-informed campaigns. Facebook was …

If you made a list of the factors that landed Donald Trump in the White House, Trump campaign digital director Brad Parscale would put Facebook near the top. “Facebook now lets you get to places—and places possibly that you would never go with TV ads,” Parscale told CBS earlier this month. “Now, I can find, you know, 15 people in the Florida Panhandle that I would never buy a TV commercial for. And, we took opportunities that I think the other side didn’t.” The relationship with Silicon Valley wasn’t one sided: as major tech companies face mounting criticism for allowing political disinformation to proliferate on their platforms, a new study suggests that employees at Facebook, Google, and Twitter also took on crucial roles within the Trump campaign, acting more like political strategists than on-site salespeople.

The collaboration allowed Team Trump to shore up its digital operations in a way that would have been difficult to accomplish on its own, according to Politico, which got an early look at the study. Embedded tech employees took on responsibilities such as targeting hard-to-reach voters and coming up with responses to probable lines of attack during debates. “Facebook, Twitter, and Google [went] beyond promoting their services and facilitating digital advertising buys,” the peer-reviewed paper concludes. The companies “actively [shaped] campaign communications through their close collaboration with political staffers.”

The Clinton campaign turned down the assistance, which Facebook, Google, and Twitter all offered to 2016 candidates free of charge. (One tech company employee in the study said her campaign “viewed us as vendors rather than consultants.”) The Trump campaign, on the other hand, used the “embeds” extensively during the general election. Ultimately, the work each company did for Trump—Google recommending geographically targeted ads, Twitter analyzing the success of tweet-based fundraising efforts, and Facebook identifying which pictures performed best on Instagram, for instance—helped close the gap between him and Clinton, experts cited in the study conclude.

The collaboration likely proved lucrative for all three companies. Online political-ad spending during the 2016 election totaled $1.4 billion—the Trump campaign spent $70 million on Facebook alone, making client services a valuable extension of Facebook’s ad product. The collaboration also conferred additional benefits, as Politico points out: national exposure, a testing ground for new features and products, and the chance to build a relationship with a candidate who might end up holding the regulatory reins once in office.

In the wake of Trump’s victory, Silicon Valley is facing difficult questions about that symbiotic relationship, and a potential regulatory reckoning. It also underscores a nearly universal truth about how the tech and media industries treated the 2016 presidential race: employees at Facebook and Twitter, among other companies in the overwhelmingly liberal Bay Area, never really expected Trump to win.

Follow to get the latest news and analysis about the players in your inbox.

The key to Mueller’s investigation of TrumpSalon
The Trump campaign’s digital operations were overseen by Kushner. Now corroborating details are emerging. Facebook disclosed that Russian entitites had bought more than 3,000 politically charged ads estimated at $150,000 on its platform during key …

Russia Uses Its Oil Giant, Rosneft, as a Foreign Policy ToolNew York Times
The company, which Russia has long relied on to finance its government and social programs, has been pushing deeply into politically sensitive countries like Cuba, China, Egypt and Vietnam, as well as tumultuous places where American interests are at …

Jared Kushner is facing enough legal trouble on the federal level that various pundits have mentioned his name as being among those who could be arrested tomorrow in relation to Donald Trump’s Russia scandal. That in turn has led to the question of whether Trump would try to pardon his son-in-law Kushner, in order to keep Kushner from cutting a deal against him. However, if that is Donald’s plan, a big monkey wrench has just been thrown into it.

Let’s hypothetically say that Jared Kushner is arrested tomorrow – or in a later round of Trump Russia arrests – on federal charges related to his secret meetings with the Russians during the campaign and transition period, and his subsequent failure to disclose those meetings on his White House security clearance forms. Let’s further say that Kushner then decides not to cut a deal, on the premise that Trump will pardon him anyway. The trouble: Kushner is suddenly facing the possibility of state level charges as well.

The Attorney General of Maryland is now investigating Jared Kushner’s family business for a number of serious alleged violations in the real estate field (link). That doesn’t mean that Kushner or anyone in his family is guilty. Nor does it mean that charges will be brought. But these investigations tend to lead to charges more often than not. If Kushner is hypothetically charged with state level crimes, Donald Trump can’t pardon those.

This could result in a situation where even if Donald Trump pardons Jared Kushner on all Russia-related federal charges, Kushner could still be facing potential jail time in Maryland – and Trump wouldn’t be able to get him off the hook for that. In the interest of the greater good, Maryland could offer to let Kushner off the hook if he flips on Trump on the federal level. It’s unclear if Special Counsel Robert Mueller is involved in the Maryland probe into Kushner.

Under the guidance of Jared Kushner, a senior campaign advisor and son-in-law of President-Elect Trump, Parscale quietly began building his own list of Trump supporters. Trump’s revolutionary database, named Project Alamo, contains the identities of 220 million people in the United States, and approximately 4,000 to 5,000 individual data points about the online and offline life of each person. Funded entirely by the Trump campaign, this database is owned by Trump and continues to exist.

Trump’s presidential election victory is the most successful digital voter suppression operation in American history. The secret weapons in Trump’s digital arsenal were Project Alamo, his database of 220 million people in the United States, and the Facebook Advertising Platform. By leveraging Facebook’s sophisticated advertising tools, including Facebook Dark Posts, Facebook Audience-Targeting, and Facebook Custom Audiences from Customer Lists, the Trump campaign was able to secretly target Hillary Clinton’s supporters and covertly discourage them from going to the polls to vote.

Nov 18, 2016 – This is the story of how the Trump campaign used data to target African… … the Facebook Audience Network, and Facebook data-broker partners. ….. most politicians do) was a social media strategy the likes of which we’ve …

Russia Uses Its Oil Giant, Rosneft, as a Foreign Policy ToolNew York Times
The company, which Russia has long relied on to finance its government and social programs, has been pushing deeply into politically sensitive countries like Cuba, China, Egypt and Vietnam, as well as tumultuous places where American interests are at …

Jared Kushner is facing enough legal trouble on the federal level that various pundits have mentioned his name as being among those who could be arrested tomorrow in relation to Donald Trump’s Russia scandal. That in turn has led to the question of whether Trump would try to pardon his son-in-law Kushner, in order to keep Kushner from cutting a deal against him. However, if that is Donald’s plan, a big monkey wrench has just been thrown into it.

Let’s hypothetically say that Jared Kushner is arrested tomorrow – or in a later round of Trump Russia arrests – on federal charges related to his secret meetings with the Russians during the campaign and transition period, and his subsequent failure to disclose those meetings on his White House security clearance forms. Let’s further say that Kushner then decides not to cut a deal, on the premise that Trump will pardon him anyway. The trouble: Kushner is suddenly facing the possibility of state level charges as well.

The Attorney General of Maryland is now investigating Jared Kushner’s family business for a number of serious alleged violations in the real estate field (link). That doesn’t mean that Kushner or anyone in his family is guilty. Nor does it mean that charges will be brought. But these investigations tend to lead to charges more often than not. If Kushner is hypothetically charged with state level crimes, Donald Trump can’t pardon those.

This could result in a situation where even if Donald Trump pardons Jared Kushner on all Russia-related federal charges, Kushner could still be facing potential jail time in Maryland – and Trump wouldn’t be able to get him off the hook for that. In the interest of the greater good, Maryland could offer to let Kushner off the hook if he flips on Trump on the federal level. It’s unclear if Special Counsel Robert Mueller is involved in the Maryland probe into Kushner.

Puerto Rico’s governor on Sunday demanded that the board of the island’s power company cancel the $300M contract with Whitefish Energy Holdings amid increased scrutiny of the Montana company’s role in Hurricane Maria recovery efforts.

Russian Trolls Would Love the ‘Honest Ads Act’Bloomberg
The idea is to make online platforms store all the political ads — both those that support specific candidates and those dealing with issues of national importance — so that the public could access them and see how they were targeted. Another …

The History of Russian Involvement in America’s Race WarsThe Atlantic
The trolls, according to an interview with the Russian TV network TV Rain, were directed to focus their tweets and comments on socially divisive issues, like guns. But another consistent theme has been Russian trolls focusing on issues of race. Some of …

Facebook Must Come Clean About Its Russian Propaganda AdsNewsweek
On November 1, Facebook’s general counsel Colin Stretch will testify before the House and Senate intelligence committees as part of the congressional investigations into Russia’s use ofsocial media and internet platforms to interfere with the 2016 …

UK lawmakers ask Facebook about Russian-linked Brexit activityThe Hill
The inquiry signals an increased interest in learning the extent and success in which Russiapermeated the social media platforms with propaganda and fake news after Facebook announced earlier this month that roughly 10 million of its users saw the ads.

In an investigation where time is not of the essence, and the prosecutor’s job is 100% secure, you might see the prosecutor methodically start at the very bottom to get someone to flip, and incrementally work upward one level at at time. This is different.

Donald Trump is illegally occupying the White House after having illegally conspired with a foreign enemy to rig the election in his favor, and he’s using his illegally held office to do more damage to the country by the day.

That doesn’t mean Mueller is going to try to sprint through this, because that could significantly lessen the odds of it succeeding.

Despite a string of controversies the NFL commissioners ability to generate money for owners helped protect him. But now their patience is wearing thinHow odd would it be if, after a tumultuous decade of debacle and debate in Roger Goodells NFL, the one to bring down the commissioner turns out to be Donald Trump?For the first time in his tenure the Goodells job is in danger and the uncertainty has come swiftly. Just weeks ago Goodell was on the verge of a five-year contract extension worth more than $100m. The new deal was believed to be certain, an affirmation that although Goodell has irritated many of the leagues owners and is wildly unpopular with fans, those same owners believed he could keep making them mounds of money. Then in September Trump railed about Colin Kaepernick and the other NFL players kneeling during the national anthem and everything blew up.

The nuclear dreams of President Donald TrumpSalon
Preventing a nuclear war between the United States and North Korea may be the most pressing challenge facing the world right now. Our childish, ignorant, and incompetent president is shoving all of us especially the people of Asia ever nearer to …and more »

News Daily: Budget ‘dilemma’ and Spacey party claimBBC News
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has said he’s ready to work with Mrs May to set up “robust and effective” new rules. Their statements come as international trade minister Mark Garnier faces a Cabinet Office investigation into whether he breached…and more »

Speculation rife as first arrest in US Russia probe nearsDaily Times
He may have been referring to a remark in May by former FBI chief James Comey, who told a Senate panel in May that Trumpwas not a target of the inquiry. As the Mueller investigation nears a dramatic new phase, Republican officials and right-leaning …

Donald Trump | The Guardian: Steve Bells If … on Donald Trump’s election anniversaryContinue reading…Donald Trump | The GuardianPalmer Report: Robert Mueller and the Legion of Boom
It’s after midnight eastern time, so welcome to the day that will go down in history as marking the first arrest or arrests in Donald Trump’s Russia scandal. As we head into the day, we’re burdened with not knowing who’s going to be arrested. That’s a good problem to have, if you’re us. It’s an entirely different problem to have if you’re a Trump-Russia player, and you’re waiting to find out if it’s you. But let’s talk about what we can truly expect out of Robert Mueller today.Investigations of this kind always work from the bottom up. The kingpin behind the crime operation is the only true priority. There are rare instances in which prosecutors decide that it’s worth giving the kingpin immunity in exchange for helping to take everyone else down but this is not one of those situations, nor would Trump cooperate in such a manner anyway. So make no mistake here, Mueller’s real target is Trump. That said, the most surefire way to take him down is to flip his own people against him. This is the part where Mueller’s strategy might deviate from the norm.In an investigation where time is not of the essence, and the prosecutor’s job is 100% secure, you might see the prosecutor methodically start at the very bottom to get someone to flip, and incrementally work upward one level at at time. This is different. Donald Trump is illegally occupying the White House after having illegally conspired with a foreign enemy to rig the election in his favor, and he’s using his illegally held office to do more damage to the country by the day. That doesn’t mean Mueller is going to try to sprint through this, because that could significantly lessen the odds of it succeeding.

That said, Mueller has been around long enough to understand that if Trump is guilty enough to warrant criminal prosecution, then Trump is guilty enough to be ousted from office as swiftly as reasonably possible. That might mean skipping over various levels in the hierarchy. For instance, though Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn were among Trump’s top people and they’re each accused of extraordinarily serious crimes that could send them to prison for life, it wouldn’t be a shocker to see Mueller offer them each a very light sentence in exchange for enough testimony and evidence to take Trump down. Although we all want justice served, if Mueller is able to oust Trump, no one is going to care in the end that Manafort and Flynn got an overly lenient process deal in the process. So let’s talk about what’s going to happen on Monday.

Rather than trying to guess which specific names might be arrested on Monday, it may be more constructive to talk about whether Mueller goes big or goes small. Will he try to avoid upsetting Donald Trump tomorrow by arresting a small-time witness whom Trump doesn’t care much about? Or will he make multiple major arrests in an effort to gash Trump so badly that it’ll be too late for Trump to realistically get away with firing him? There’s some recent history in that regard.

When Robert Mueller decided that he needed to seize documents from Paul Manafort’s home, he could have shown up with warrant in broad daylight and simply knocked on the door. Instead he got a no-knock warrant and had the FBI break into Manafort’s home in the middle of the night, only waking up Manafort on the way out the door to let him know how screwed he was. Mueller has shown us that when he makes fundamental moves in this probe, he prefers to go big and make a definitive statement. Happy Monday.

Politics and comedy, a helpful mixtureWillamette University Collegian
The SNL episode directly following the 9/11 attacks, for example, featured the executive producer turning to mayor Rudy Giuliani and asking, Can we be funny again? to which Giuliani responded, Why start now? It can be clever and witty and bring up …

Politics and comedy, a helpful mixtureWillamette University Collegian
The SNL episode directly following the 9/11 attacks, for example, featured the executive producer turning to mayor Rudy Giuliani and asking, Can we be funny again? to which Giuliani responded, Why start now? It can be clever and witty and bring up …

Trump comes ahead with fresh criticism of Russia inquiryThe Philadelphia Tribune
WASHINGTON President Donald Trump expressed renewed frustration Sunday over the investigations into alleged tiesbetween his campaign associates and Russian government officials, saying on Twitter that the “facts are pouring out” about links to …and more »

It’s about to start “raining indictments” in Donald Trump’s Russia scandal and indictments mean criminal charges, arrests, and potential deals. It’s already confirmed that at least one Trump-Russia player will be arrested on Monday, with more likely to soon follow. Now one legal expert is making the case that Vice President Mike Pence is connected to at least one of the arrests that’s expected to take place.Many are expecting Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort to be arrested on Monday. For that matter, Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s people have previously warned Manafort that his indictment and arrest were forthcoming. Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe, one of the most widely respected legal experts in the United States, reminded everyone on Sunday night that “The Pence/Manafort axis should be kept in mind as the sky starts raining indictments.” (link) So what’s he referring to?Professor Tribe included a link to a Daily Kos article which highlights the sheer number of instances in which Mike Pence and Paul Manafort communicated with each other during the transition period, after election day and before inauguration (link). There was no above-board purpose for this, as Manafort had departed the campaign months earlier, and he had no official transition role whatsoever. Meanwhile Pence was in charge of the transition for most of its duration. It’s also long been reported that when Manafort was campaign chair, he used a series of hijinks to trick Trump into picking Pence as his running mate.

Why would the Vice President-elect spend the transition period calling up the disgraced former campaign manager on the phone? That’s never been entirely clear, but it’s likely the same answer to why Paul Manafort bent over so far backward to make sure Donald Trump picked Mike Pence to be his running mate to begin with. Bottom line: Pence isn’t getting through the Trump-Russia scandal cleanly.

Legal expert: Mike Pence connected to Trump-Russia arrests
Legal expert: Mike Pence connected to Trump-Russia arrestsLegal expert: Mike Pence connected to Trump-Russia arrests
Mike Pence isn’t getting out of this cleanlyDonald Trump picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue
This weekend we witnessed the precise moment which will go down in the history books as the moment Donald Trump’s presidency died. No, it wasn’t on Friday night, when it was reported that Special Counsel Robert Mueller had filed criminal charges and was about to begin arresting Trump’s people. Instead, it was on Sunday morning, when Trump publicly turned into a pile of mush and literally begged for help from anyone who might be left to help him. Trump, as it were, picked the wrong moment to stop sniffing glue.Okay, so there’s no specific evidence that Donald Trump actually sniffs glue, though his behavior often raises the question of whether he might be high on something. The point here is that Trump has officially lost his mojo. Sure, he might get back to the defiant and threatening bluster tomorrow, after he sees his pals in handcuffs on live television and flies into a bitter rage. But there’s no going back from what we saw out of him on Sunday morning: for the first time since the Trump-Russia investigation got underway, he was scared.Trump has already clearly reached the noticeable stages of dementia, or Alzheimer’s, or whatever it is that’s been gnawing away at his cognitive abilities over the past months. It’s no longer clear that he’s consistently lucid enough to understand what’s going on. But he appeared plenty lucid on Sunday when he used Twitter to publicly address his remaining Republican allies in Congress and frantically yelled “DO SOMETHING!”

Even Donald Trump now understands, at least in one of his increasingly rare lucid moments, that the Trump-Russia scandal has progressed to the point that he can no longer think of a way out of it. He’s begging for help. He’s not going to get enough of it, and it’s too late anyway. Now even he knows it. Contribute to Palmer Report

Speculation rife as first arrest in US Russia probe nearsDaily Times
He may have been referring to a remark in May by former FBI chief James Comey, who told a Senate panel in May that Trumpwas not a target of the inquiry. As the Mueller investigation nears a dramatic new phase, Republican officials and right-leaning …

Donald Trump accidentally implicates Republicans in his Trump-Russia scandal coverup
Donald Trump is melting down. We’ve heard that before, of course. In fact we’ve heard it so many times, because he’s done it so many times, that the word “meltdown” is at risk of losing its meaning. But Trump’s meltdown on Sunday morning was unique, both because it was unhinged and desperate even by his standards, and because Trump accidentally implicated the Republicans in his Trump-Russia scandal coverup in the process.Trump went off the deep end on Sunday morning, in delayed fashion, after the news surfaced on Friday night that Special Counsel Robert Mueller would be filing the first Trump-Russia criminal charges on Monday. With one or more of Trump’s associates about to be arrested in order to pressure them to flip on him, Trump predictably lost it. It was somewhat surprising to see Trump literally begging for help, a clear sign that he no longer believes he can fend off the scandal. It was more surprising to see Trump losing it so badly that he unwittingly implicated his allies for obstruction of justice.See if you can spot the admission in Trump’s prolonged Twitter rant: “Never seen such Republican ANGER & UNITY as I have concerning the lack of investigation on Clinton made Fake Dossier (now $12,000,000?), the Uranium to Russia deal, the 33,000 plus deleted Emails, the Comey fix and so much more. Instead they look at phony Trump/Russia, “collusion,” which doesn’t exist. The Dems are using this terrible (and bad for our country) Witch Hunt for evil politics, but the R’s are now fighting back like never before. There is so much GUILT by Democrats/Clinton, and now the facts are pouring out. DO SOMETHING!”

Donald Trump began by making clear that he was addressing the Republican Party leadership. Then he referenced the phony Hillary Clinton Russian uranium scandal that the Republican Congress concocted this week as a distraction from Trump’s very real Russia scandal. He also referenced his own Russian collusion scandal. Then he begged the Republicans to “Do something” to stop what’s about to play out. In the process he admitted that the Republicans invented the Hillary-Russia scandal to try to help obstruct the investigation into his own Russia scandal. Then he asked them to “do” more obstruction. Oops.

Roger Stone vows legal action after being banned from TwitterDaily MailRoger Stone vows legal action after being banned from Twitter. Roger Stone, Republican political operative and close ally of President Trump, was banned from Twitter after a foul-mouthed rant directed at several journalists. Roger Stone vows legal …

New details surface regarding Paul Manaforts impending arrest
Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort is going to be arrested. We know this because Special Counsel Robert Mueller had the FBI inform Manafort that he’s going to be arrested when they raided his home this summer. We’re still waiting to see whether Manafort will be arrested tomorrow, but it’s clear that his arrest is forthcoming. Now new details are emerging regarding Manafort’s impending arrest.Mueller and his team have zeroed in on thirteen large and suspicious financial transactions on the part of Paul Manafort, according to a new BuzzFeed report (link). These transactions point to alleged money laundering on Manafort’s part, as well as other potential financial crimes. Manafort was paid tens of millions of dollars by a Kremlin oligarch for his work in getting a Russian puppet elected in Ukraine, and he failed to register as a foreign agent for that work.Manafort is facing potential criminal charges for having illegally failed to register when he took the foreign money to begin with, and for any financial crimes he may have committed with the money once he received it. This is before getting to the question of whether the particulars of Manafort’s work in Ukraine which allegedly included a number of shady electioneering tactics violated any U.S. laws. It’s also before getting to whether Manafort was illegally colluding with Russia on behalf of the Donald Trump campaign when he reportedly offered to provide regular briefings to the Kremlin oligarch who had previously employed him.

If Paul Manafort is arrested tomorrow, the criminal charges may have nothing to do with his role in running the Donald Trump campaign but that would largely be the point. Robert Mueller’s goal is to nail Manafort as swiftly as possible on the most straightforward charges against him, thus backing Manafort into a corner and motivating him to confess to the Trump-related crimes as part of a deal.

The link between Crime, Terrorism, and Migration is very real!

“Washington Post”, get rid of your obvious and misleading liberal bias and face the truth. There is no doubt, in my very humble opinion, that in the present circumstances the borders (all of them, physical and virtual) have to be strengthened. “Wall or no wall”, this country has to protect itself from this pre-orchestrated, planned, hostile “invasion”. This issue, in a long term perspective, affects the demographic composition, and, inevitably, the mind, the soul, and the essence of this country. The comprehensive immigration reform is needed to bring the order and sanity into this system. It is a bipartisan issue. The best way to deal with it is to assist the future migrants at the places where they already are, be it their own or the third countries, and to help them with the adjustment and making the rational and orderly plans for emigration or non-emigration. It will also be much more efficient, including the comparative costs of the prospective interventions vs. non-interventions options for the migrants’ assistance.

In its present state, the dysfunctional US Immigration system does breed crime and definitely linked to it, the courtesy of the various Intelligence Services, among the other factors, the terrorist activity.

Do the methodologically correct studies to reveal these connections!

It is also difficult not to see the larger and the deliberate design (I wish I would know, by whom) which can be described by this imaginary phrase: “You, Americans, deal with your own problems at your southern borders, and we will make sure that you continue having these problems; and we: the Germans, the New Abwehr, the Russians, the “Europeans” will deal with our own problems at our southern borders, which includes the Middle East, Syria, Afghanistan”, etc., etc. Very straightforward and clear, almost German in its artificial simplicity and squareness, design. The Strasbourg attack was the latest demonstration of the “Terrorism – Crime – Migration Nexus“, as it was aptly described and defined.

The recent events (US withdrawal from Syria , (even if largely symbolic but telling: “А вас тута не стояло“), and the planned withdrawal from Afghanistan confirm this line of thought further. “Theories of a crime-terror nexus are well established in the literature. Often conceptualized along a continuum, relationships between organisations range from contracting services and the appropriation of tactics, to complete mergers or even role changes. Recent irregular migrant movements have added to the nexus, providing financial opportunities to criminal enterprises and creating grievances and heated debate that has fueled the anger of ideological groups.” This pattern is reported for Europe but there should not be any significant reasons to believe that this constellation of forces and factors and their dynamics are any different in the Western hemisphere. The Statistics should help to clarify the issues, not to obscure them. And the reporters might be tempted to spin the numbers into any direction they want, just like anyone else. Let the specialists, including the statisticians, comment on these matters. The incompleteness and narrowness of the press reports like the one linked above only throws more oil into the flames and allows if not justifies the Trump’s criticism of his press coverage as the “Fake News & totally dishonest Media” and the “crazed lunatics who have given up on the TRUTH!”. (What a horrible crime! Right out of the mouth of The TRUTH Teller In Chief!)As far as “the enemy of the people”, this might be the more debatable attribution. So far. (The New Abwehr’s control of the Global Mass Media notwithstanding.)

Exploring the Nexus in Europe and Southeast Asia by Cameron Sumpter and Joseph Franco Abstract Theories of a crime-terror nexus are well established in the literature. Often conceptualised along a continuum, relationships between organisations range from contracting services and the appropriation of tactics, to complete mergers or even role changes. Recent irregular migrant movements have added to the nexus, providing financial opportunities to criminal enterprises and creating grievances and heated debate that has fuelled the anger of ideological groups. In Europe, terrorist organisations have worked with and sometimes emulated organised crime syndicates through involvement in the trafficking of drugs, people, weapons and antiquities. In Southeast Asia, conflict areas provide the backdrop for cross-border drug trafficking and kidnap-for-ransom activities, while extremist groups both commit crimes for profit and target criminals for recruitment. Keywords: Crime-Terror nexus, organised crime, terrorism, migration, Europe, Southeast Asia –“Fake News & totally dishonest Media concerning me and my presidency has never been worse,” Trump said in the first of the tweets. “Many have become crazed lunatics who have given up on the TRUTH!”